Trolling and the morality of bullying on the internet.

[WanderingLands]

Ok well I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I am interested in how and why trolls behave the way they do, I know of course children often act out, often bully others and so on, but a large majority of trolls on the internet are well into their twenties, and some of the worst I have seen well into their 60s.

So how would you go about answering the question why troll? What do you get out of it? You don't have to be a troll to answer obviously but I am genuinely concerned about the mental health of some people on the internet...

So with that in mind, and asking people to stick to the forum rules whatever they are, please explain to me why this trolling is now endemic and how you would justify it morally if indeed you would..?

I am also interested to hear from anyone who has been affected by this sort of bullying, and how they feel about the sort of people that indulge in this chimp like behaviour; ah no that's not fair chimpanzees don't bully others like humans do, but you get the point.

And no this is not a troll it's a genuine concern for the health of a social medium. Before anyone says that.

If you'd ask me, I'd say that most, if not more than half, of these trolls are really Government agents and/or Artificial Intelligence.

Think about it. Google is coming up with Artificial Intelligence, and has also bought up a lot of robot making companies, and also is in cahoots with the elite (the owners being rich and being connected through Bilderberg and all). Plus, in 2009, if you guys have never heard of this story, the Pentagon increased 63% spending on propaganda.

Sources:

Google search - google artificial intelligence: https://www.google.com/#q=google+artifi ... telligence
Google search - google buys all of robot companies: https://www.google.com/#q=google+buys+a ... +companies
Scribd - Pentagon Money Spent on Propaganda Increased 63 Percent in 2009: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33758339/Pent ... nt-in-2009

[Ginkgo]

.


That's part of the beauty of using images.

The interpretation is up to you. So, in a very real way, you get it




.

The other big advantage is that you don't have to articulate an argument.

Besides a couple of obvious advantages when it comes to posting images, how does one not understand what one is looking at, and at the same time understand what they are looking at?

[Blaggard]

If you'd ask me, I'd say that most, if not more than half, of these trolls are really Government agents and/or Artificial Intelligence.

Think about it. Google is coming up with Artificial Intelligence, and has also bought up a lot of robot making companies, and also is in cahoots with the elite (the owners being rich and being connected through Bilderberg and all). Plus, in 2009, if you guys have never heard of this story, the Pentagon increased 63% spending on propaganda.

Sources:

Google search - google artificial intelligence: https://www.google.com/#q=google+artifi ... telligence
Google search - google buys all of robot companies: https://www.google.com/#q=google+buys+a ... +companies
Scribd - Pentagon Money Spent on Propaganda Increased 63 Percent in 2009: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33758339/Pent ... nt-in-2009

I made a thread on another forum where I asked the question were the CIA and China's intelligence agencies the biggest trolls on the internet, I think they could only be responsible for some of it. The vast majority I think is actually bored children of whatever age with some sort of mental disorder that needs constant attention and validation.

[Blaggard]

.








..........................................






That's part of the beauty of using images.

The interpretation is up to you. So, in a very real way, you get it




.

Not the first clue what you were trying to say tbh.

Baby playing a eucelaly says to me that you are accusing the previous post of being a baby playing a eucalaly, which doesn't really make any sense.

Since you don't quote anyone I can only assume it was directed at the previous post but who knows, it could be a reference to the OP, I guess we will never know..?

[Blaggard]

The other big advantage is that you don't have to articulate an argument.

Besides a couple of obvious advantages when it comes to posting images, how does one not understand what one is looking at, and at the same time understand what they are looking at?

They say a picture can tell a thousand words, sometimes though it's just a thousand words of gibberish.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Images speak to an individual in a way literal messages cannot.




"...how does one not understand what one is looking at, and at the same time understand what they are looking at?"



Left brain/right brain experiments as described in Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind explains scenarios where this could possibly happen.







.....................................................








.

[Blaggard]

.





Images speak to an individual in a way literal messages cannot.




"...how does one not understand what one is looking at, and at the same time understand what they are looking at?"



Left brain/right brain experiments as described in Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind explains scenarios where this could possibly happen.






.

Yeah still not getting it, and I doubt I somehow am meant to...

[henry quirk]

Blaggard,

Was gonna be snarky and troll-like in my response, but I just don't have the will for it today, so...


"it is illegal in the UK and many other countries on the internet or face to face, we can at least say that bullying or intimidation is in terms of practical ethics forbidden"

Law is usually just the codification of 'shoulds' and 'should nots', the purpose of which is maintaining the status quo (the stability [domestication] of society).

Laws against bullying have little to do with individuals and everything to do with keeping the livestock quiet in the pen.

As far as 'practical ethics' goes: I don't know what that means.

#

"Not everyone is the Karate Kid."

In my experience: you don't have to be.

The "7 ft tall...200lb" 'brute' is as likely to be a pussy as anyone.

#

Understand: I don't favor bullying...I just don't get what the big to-do is about bullying, is all.

[Blaggard]

Blaggard,

Was gonna be snarky and troll-like in my response, but I just don't have the will for it today, so...


"it is illegal in the UK and many other countries on the internet or face to face, we can at least say that bullying or intimidation is in terms of practical ethics forbidden"

Law is usually just the codification of 'shoulds' and 'should nots', the purpose of which is maintaining the status quo (the stability [domestication] of society).

Laws against bullying have little to do with individuals and everything to do with keeping the livestock quiet in the pen.

As far as 'practical ethics' goes: I don't know what that means.

#

"Not everyone is the Karate Kid."

In my experience: you don't have to be.

The "7 ft tall...200lb" 'brute' is as likely to be a pussy as anyone.

#

Understand: I don't favor bullying...I just don't get what the big to-do is about bullying, is all.

Have you ever been bullied?

If so what did you do to end it, if not why do you think that the bullying you no doubt saw as a child is something that is merely not tolerated to keep the kine in line.

Practical ethics generally means applied ethics which in general means something legal although it might not it does depend on circumstance.

For example smacking a child that has done wrong may be seen as some sort of bullying behaviour to coerce the child into submission or it may be seen as the only reliable way to get the child to behave, it does kind of depend like most things on your perspective. Smacking children hard enough to leave a mark for example is illegal in Scotland, that makes it a form of applied ethics that is also backed up at least in that case by a law, but like with most moral consideration it is seldom if ever black and white and applied ethics may or may not be legally pertinent. Pragmatism does as you rightly say play a part but that is what I mean by practical ethics.

Edit: and if anyone wants to troll, troll away, it's likely only to make my point for me, and more seriously might leave you banned or censored. Which is I think the point of the OP although implicitly.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








........................................







.

[Blaggard]

Now that one I did get, quite Bill.

[henry quirk]

"Have you ever been bullied?"

Yep...who hasn't been?

#

"If so what did you do to end it"

I hit him (and the several that followed, over the years).

[Blaggard]

"Have you ever been bullied?"

Yep...who hasn't been?

#

"If so what did you do to end it"

I hit him (and the several that followed, over the years).

And you condone the behaviour still? Or in your own words didn't see what the big deal was, now I dealt with it in the same way, sometimes beating the granny out of bullies sometimes just not making it worth their while, and sometimes through pure mental intimidation. But I came away from that with the view that we should not tolerate that behaviour. You came away with the view it is no big deal. I am therefore interested to know why...

Now I am not cowering quaking lilly and I don't claim to be Bruce Lee, but weaker people physically or mentally are picked on by stronger people, usually the behaviour is restricted to childhood, but why then are there laws against bullying in the work place for example, surely it can't all just be kine related?

[henry quirk]

"we should not tolerate that behaviour"

No. You should not tolerate it.

I don't.

Seems to me: self-defense is in the hands of the 'self'.

Any other option invites debt...I'm not keen on indebtedness.

Some other folks (incapable of self-defending) prefer a proxy.

That's fine (as long as they understand I'm not payin' for their protection).

#

"You came away with the view it is no big deal. I am therefore interested to know why..."

Living is not supposed to be 'easy'.

Certainly, I'm all for comfort and pleasure and whatnot, but some stressors shouldn't be avoided (and if they are avoided the price is physical and mental atrophy).

I favor washing my own dishes (don't need a machine).

I favor changing my own oil (don't need a mechanic).

I favor defending myself (don't need a protector).

Again: Some other folks (incapable of self-defending, getting dirty, or standing at a sink) prefer a proxy.

And, again: that's fine.

[Ginkgo]

.





Images speak to an individual in a way literal messages cannot.




"...how does one not understand what one is looking at, and at the same time understand what they are looking at?"



Left brain/right brain experiments as described in Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind explains scenarios where this could possibly happen.

I would like to think I am one of these modern humans who has developed a consciousness that no longer has the Gods speaking to him. So you are going to have to explain these images.